Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:19:51.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Kevin T. McGuire  and
Gregory A. Caldeira
Kevin T. McGuire
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Gregory A. Caldeira
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Each year thousands of cases and litigants come to the Supreme Court. How can the Court find the most important cases to decide? The law of obscenity illustrates particularly well the Court's problem as it constructs its plenary agenda. Using data drawn from petitions for certiorari and jurisdictional statements filed with the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1987, we formulate and test a model of case selection in which professional obscenity lawyers and organized interests figure as critical elements in the process of agenda building. We also encounter strong evidence of the Court's differential treatment of several different litigants. Moreover, the calculus of selection changed markedly over time, as the Court itself changed; the Burger Court and Warren Court weighed several of the criteria quite differently.

Type
Research Note
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 717 - 726
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, Virginia C., and Johnson, Charles A.. 1982. “Certiorari Decisions by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?” Polity 15:141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Stewart A. 1984. “A Practical Guide to Certiorari.” Catholic University Law Review 33:611–32.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics 41:649–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82:1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1989. “Parties, Direct Representatives, and Agenda-building in the Supreme Court.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1990. “The Discuss List: Organized Interests and Agenda-setting.” Law and Society Review 24:807–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Cohen v. California. 1971. 403 U.S. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennis, Bruce J. 1984. “Effective Amicus Briefs.” Catholic University Law Review 33:603–09.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1990. “Courts and Interest Groups." In American Courts ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and O'Connor, Karen. 1988. “States and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Examination of Litigation Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 68:660–74.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Rowland, C. K.. 1991. “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility.” American Political Science Review 85:205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erznoznick v. Jacksonville. 1971. 422 U.S. 205.Google Scholar
Freedman v. Maryland. 1965. 380 U.S. 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Andrew L., Geller, Kenneth S., and Harris, Daniel. 1987. “Opposing Review: The Art of Finding ‘Uncertworthiness’.” Inside Litigation 1:27–30.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9:95–160.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Epstein, Lee. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86:323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda. 1992. Lightening the Scales of Justice: High Court Trims Its Docket. New York Times March 7:1, 7.Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. 1991. “But Do They Have To See It To Know It? The Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions.” Western Political Quarterly 44:1039–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr., 1960. “The Metaphysics of the Law of Obscenity.” In Supreme Court Review, ed. Kurland, Philip B.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kobylka, Joseph F. 1987. “A Court-related Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity Litigation.” Journal of Politics 49:1061–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobylka, Joseph F. 1991. The Politics of Obscenity: Group Litigation in a Time of Legal Change. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Kreps, David M. 1990. “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory.” In Alt, James E. and Shepsle, Kenneth A. (eds.), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. Pp. 90–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krislov, Samuel. 1968. “From Ginzburg to Ginsberg: The Un-hurried Children's Hour in Obscenity Litigation.” In Supreme Court Review, ed. Kurland, Philip B.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liles v. Oregon. 1976. 425 U.S. 963.Google Scholar
Lockhart, William B. 1975. “Escape from the Chill of Uncertainty: Explicit Sex and the First Amendment.” Georgia Law Review 9:533–87.Google Scholar
Lockhart, William B., and McClure, Robert C.. 1954. “Literature, the Law of Obscenity, and the Constitution.” Minnesota Law Review 38:295–395.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1990. “Obscenity, Libertarian Values, and Decision-making in the Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly 18:47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Magrath, C. Peter. 1966. “The Obscenity Cases: Grapes of Roth.” In Supreme Court Review, ed. Kurland, Philip B.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marcus v. Search Warrant. 1961. 367 U.S. 717.Google Scholar
Miller v. California. 1973. 413 U.S. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr., 1991. Deciding To Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Redrup v. New York. 1967. 386 U.S. 767.Google Scholar
Roth v. United States. 1957. 354 U.S. 476.Google Scholar
Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim. 1981. 452 U.S. 61.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederic F. 1976. The Law of Obscenity. Washington: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederic F. 1979. “Speech and ‘Speech’—Obscenity and ‘Obscenity’: An Exercise in the Interpretation of Constitutional Language.” Georgia Law Journal 67:899–1118.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review 78:891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1985. “Measuring Change on the Supreme Court: Examining Alternative Models.” American Journal of Political Science 29:461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 41:135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Reedy, Cheryl D.. 1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly 41:553–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, and Songer, Donald R.. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 86:464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41:1185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, A. Michael. 1974. Market Signaling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Geoffrey R., Seidman, Louis M., Sunstein, Cass R., and Tushnet, Mark V.. 1986. Constitutional Law. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Schick, Marvin, Muraskin, Matthew, and Rosen, Daniel. 1963. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Juris-diction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision-making, ed. Schubert, Glendon. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Teger, Stuart H., and Kosinski, Douglas. 1980. “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Politics 42:834–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribe, Laurence H. 1988. American Constitutional Law. 2d edition. Mineola, NY: Foundation.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1978. “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model.” American Political Science Review 72:902–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1983. “Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review.” Journal of Politics 45:474–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review 78:901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance v. Universal Amusement Company. 1980. 445 U.S. 308.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob, and Armstrong, Scott. 1979. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Young v. American Mini Theatres. 1976. 427 U.S. 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.